[Judgment Summary] According to the content of the mobile phone recording provided by the plaintiff (creditor), the plaintiff and the defendant (debtor) made a call to the defendant's mobile phone when they were discussing the repayment of the loan. Even if the person who answered the call was not the defendant himself, it is sufficient. To prove the fact that the plaintiff claimed the creditor's rights, it should be determined that the statute of limitations of the loan involved in the case was interrupted at this time and should be recalculated from the next day, which has factual and legal basis.



Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China
civil amibitration
(2021) Supreme Court Min Shen No. 2434

Applicant for the retrial (defendant in the first instance, appellant in the second instance): Hongli Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., Huazhou District, Weinan City. Address: Sanxi Village, Xinglin, Huazhou District, Weinan City, Shaanxi Province.

Legal representative: Xue Jianli, general manager of the company.

Agent ad litem: Liu Xiaoyi, lawyer of Shaanxi Weimin Law Firm.

Respondent (plaintiff in the first instance, appellant in the second instance): Tongguan County Xinlong Investment Co., Ltd. Address: Jindu Commercial Street, Taolin Road, Tongguan County, Shaanxi Province.

Legal representative: Sun Xiaolong, executive director of the company.

Appellee in the second instance (defendant in the first instance): Shaanxi Branch of Chongqing Tianzi Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Address: Room 503, Block B, Haosheng Garden, Weiyang Avenue, Economic Development Zone, Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province.

Person in charge: Peng Kaixuan.

Appellee of the second instance (defendant of the first instance): Wu Yingbo, male, born on September 17, 1964, Han nationality, residing in Yilong County, Nanchong City, Sichuan Province.

Defendant of the first instance: Xue Jianli, male, born on March 22, 1965, Han nationality, residing in Hua County, Shaanxi Province.

The retrial applicant Weinan City Huazhou District Hongli Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongli Company) was involved in the dispute with the respondent Tongguan County Xinlong Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinlong Company), and the second-instance appellee Chongqing Tianzi Industry Shaanxi Branch of the Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianzi Shaanxi Branch), Wu Yingbo and Xue Jianli, the first-instance defendant in the private loan dispute case, refused to accept the Civil Judgment (2020) Shan Min Zhong No. 848 of the Shaanxi Provincial Higher People's Court and applied to this court retrial. This court formed a collegial panel according to the law to carry out the review, and the review has now been concluded.

Hongli Company applied for retrial, claiming that the original judgment used the mobile phone recording on September 1, 2015 as the basis for the interruption of the statute of limitations. The debt involved in the case has exceeded the statute of limitations, and Hongli Company should not undertake the corresponding guarantee responsibility. Hongli Company applied for retrial in accordance with Item 2, Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

This court believes that the main issue that should be reviewed in this case is: whether the original judgment found that the loan involved in the case did not exceed the statute of limitations.


According to the facts ascertained in the original judgment, Wu Yingbo was affiliated with Tianzi Shaanxi Branch, and in the name of the company contracted the commercial and residential project of Yixinyinghua Mansion (also known as Yixinyuan) in Hua County developed by Hongli Company. During the construction process, in order to solve the problem of project capital turnover, Wu Yingbo borrowed 13 million yuan from Xinlong Company on behalf of Tianzi Shaanxi Branch. Hongli Company signed a house sale contract with Xinlong Company for 111 properties involved in the project and handled the advance notice registration guarantee by means of. Afterwards, Xinlong Company made the loan according to the agreement, but Tianzi Shaanxi Branch and Wu Yingbo failed to perform the repayment obligation as agreed, and Xinlong Company filed this lawsuit. The court of second instance judged Tianzi Shaanxi Branch and Wu Yingbo to return the loan principal of 11.44 million yuan and interest based on the ascertained facts, and Hongli Company should bear the corresponding guarantee responsibility. Hongli Company applied for retrial and believed that Xinlong Company had exceeded the statute of limitations in filing this case, and it should not bear the corresponding guarantee liability. After examination, according to the agreed loan period of six months, Xinlong Company paid the loan in multiple installments, and the last payment was made on June 4, 2013. Therefore, the time limit for the loan litigation involved in the case expired on December 4, 2015. According to the mobile phone text message submitted by Xinlong Company, during the limitation period of the lawsuit, it made several complaints to the guarantor Hong on August 21, August 24, November 3, November 23, and December 16, 2015. The company asserts its rights. At the same time, according to the content of the mobile phone recording provided by Xinlong Company, on September 1, 2015, when Hongli Company and Xinlong Company were negotiating with Xinlong Company on the settlement of the loan involved in the case, they made a call to Wu Yingbo's mobile phone, even though the person who answered the call was not Wu Yingbo, However, it is sufficient to prove the fact that Xinlong Company claimed the creditor's rights. Based on this, the original judgment determined that the statute of limitations for the loan involved in the case was interrupted on September 1, 2015 and should be recalculated from the next day. The factual basis is sufficient and there is nothing wrong. Hongli Company's grounds for retrial application cannot be established, and this court does not support it.

To sum up, Hongli Company's application for retrial does not meet the conditions stipulated in Item 2 of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. According to the first paragraph of Article 204 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" and the second paragraph of Article 395 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", the ruling is as follows :
The retrial application of Hongli Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., Huazhou District, Weinan City was rejected.

Presiding Judge Chen Hongyu
Judge Xu Lin
Judge Zhang Mei
April 29, 2021
Judge Assistant Zou Junhong

Clerk He Yu

Zhang Xuehua, a lawyer from Beijing Kangda Law Firm, lawyer license number: 11101200510298487, obtained a lawyer's license in 2005, and is good at debt collection, real estate disputes, and corporate legal affairs